Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "McMillion, Barry J." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
U.S. District Court Vacancies at the Beginning and End of the Obama Presidency: Overview and Comparative Analysis [January 31, 2017]
"This Insight provides comparative historical data related to U.S. district court vacancies that existed at the beginning and end of the Obama presidency (as well as at the beginning and end of the presidencies of his two most recent predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton). This Insight also provides a geographic overview of the location of district court vacancies that existed on President Obama's final full day in office (i.e., on January 19, 2017), as well as the location of vacancies deemed 'judicial emergencies' by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. At present, Congress has authorized 673 district court judgeships. Vacant judgeships typically arise when a judge voluntarily retires or assumes senior status, but can also occur by other means (such as when a judge is elevated to a circuit court judgeship or when new judgeships are authorized by Congress)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-01-31
-
Select Demographic and Other Characteristics of Recent U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees [August 17, 2017]
"This Insight provides information related to select demographic and other characteristics of U.S. circuit and district court nominees whose nominations were submitted to the Senate by President Trump prior to August 1, 2017. President Trump submitted a total of 26 nominations prior to this date. The select demographic and other characteristics of these 26 individuals are compared to the same demographic and other characteristics of the first 26 individuals nominated to U.S. circuit and district court judgeships during the Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton presidencies. The information is summarized in Figure 1."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-08-17
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Judges: Profile of Select Characteristics [August 01, 2017]
"This report provides a profile of select demographic and background characteristics of active judges currently serving on the U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. district courts. Specifically, for active circuit and district court judges serving as of June 1, 2017, this report provides a statistical breakdown of these judges' gender; race; gender and race, combined; current age; age at the time of their appointment to the bench; length of service; and professional occupation or position at the time of their appointment. A statistical breakdown of these select demographic and background characteristics is provided first for active U.S. circuit court judges, followed by the same information for active U.S. district court judges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-08-01
-
Blue Slip Process for U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Frequently Asked Questions
"The blue slip process used by the Senate Judiciary Committee (the committee) for U.S. circuit and district court nominations has received renewed interest from Senators. The committee's use of the blue slip has been, since at least 1917, a feature of its consideration of U.S. circuit and district court nominations. After a President selects a nominee for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman sends a blue-colored form to the Senators representing the home state of the nominee. The form seeks the home state Senators' assessment of the nominee. If a home state Senator has no objection to a nominee, the blue slip is returned to the chairman with a positive response. If, however, a home state Senator objects to a nominee, the blue slip is either withheld or returned with a negative response. Since the use of blue slips is not codified or included in the committee's rules, the chairman of the committee has the discretion to determine the extent to which a home state Senator's negative, or withheld, blue slip stops a President's judicial nomination from receiving a committee hearing and a committee vote and, consequently, whether it reaches the Senate floor. Over the century of the use of the blue slip, different chairmen have used the blue slip in different ways. During some years, a chairman has required a nominee to receive two positive blue slips from his or her home state Senators. This particular blue slip policy, for example, was in place during the eight years of the Obama presidency and much of the George W. Bush presidency--during periods of both unified and divided party control."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-10-02
-
President's Selection of a Nominee for a Supreme Court Vacancy: Overview [June 27, 2018]
"On June 27, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, after serving on the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice since 1988, announced his intention to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy indicated that his retirement would be effective July 31, 2018. This Insight provides an overview of several issues related to the selection of a nominee by a President for a vacancy on the Court. For additional information and analyses on these and other issues, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-06-27
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [August 14, 2018]
"The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. To receive appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specifically, the Judiciary Committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, assumes the principal responsibility for investigating the background and qualifications of each Supreme Court nominee, and typically the committee conducts a close, intensive investigation of each nominee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-08-14
-
Recent Recommendations by the Judicial Conference for New U.S. Circuit and District Court Judgeships: Overview and Analysis [September 3, 2019]
From the Introduction: "Article III, Section I of the Constitution provides that the 'judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' Consequently, Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. For example, the size of the federal judiciary is determined, in part, by the number of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships authorized by Congress. Congress has, at numerous times over the years, authorized an increase in the number of such judgeships in order to meet the workload-based needs of the federal court system. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress to assist it in identifying any U.S. circuit and district courts that may be in need of additional judgeships. The most recent recommendations for new U.S. circuit and district court judgeships were released by the Judicial Conference in March 2019."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-09-03
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote [September 7, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive an appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. This report provides information and analyses related to the debate and consideration of Supreme Court nominations by the full Senate once nominations are reported by the Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-07
-
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for a Supreme Court Nominee: Overview [July 12, 2018]
"On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced his selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the impending vacancy that will be created on the U.S. Supreme Court by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 31, 2018. Supreme Court nominations since 1949 have routinely received public confirmation hearings before either the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee. In 1955, hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of John M. Harlan marked the beginning of a practice, continuing to the present, of Court nominees testifying in-person before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since 1955, however, there have been 2 nominees (out of a total of 31) who did not receive hearings after being nominated to the Court. In one instance, the nomination of Harriet Miers was withdrawn by President George W. Bush after committee hearings had been scheduled, and in another instance, the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland by President Obama was not given hearings following decisions by Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to have the Senate act on the nomination"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-07-12
-
Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2017: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President [July 6, 2018]
"The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate's consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such 'recess appointments,' however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate's next session. The last recess appointments to the Court were made in the 1950s."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.; Rutkus, Denis Steven
2018-07-06
-
Senate Confirmation Votes on U.S. Supreme Court Nominations: Overview [September 13, 2018]
"After the Senate Judiciary Committee reports a Supreme Court nomination, it is placed on the Senate Executive Calendar (to be considered in executive session). Senate consideration of a Supreme Court nomination includes floor debate on the nomination, as well as a final vote by the Senate on whether to approve it. When floor debate on a nomination ends, the presiding officer puts the question of confirmation to a vote. A roll call vote to confirm requires a simple majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present. Since 1967, beginning with the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, every Senate vote on whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call (prior to 1967, most confirmation votes were by voice vote)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2018-09-13
-
U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominees Who Received a Rating of 'Not Qualified' from the American Bar Association: Background and Historical Analysis [November 13, 2017]
"The process used by the American Bar Association (ABA) to evaluate judicial nominees has, over the years, remained a topic of ongoing interest among Senators during the judicial confirmation process. This CRS (Congressional Research Service) Insight provides background information and historical analysis of U.S. circuit and district court nominees who received, from 1953 to the present, a rating of 'not qualified' from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the ABA. Since 1953, every presidential Administration, except those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, has sought ABA prenomination evaluations of its prospective U.S. circuit and district court nominees. During the Bush presidency, as well as during the current Administration, the ABA has provided postnomination evaluations of nominees."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2017-11-13
-
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [November 30, 2017]
"When federal agencies and programs lack funding after the expiration of full-year or interim appropriations, the agencies and programs experience a funding gap. If funding does not resume in time to continue government operations, then, under the Antideficiency Act, an agency must cease operations, except in certain situations when law authorizes continued activity. The criteria that flow from the Antideficiency Act for determining which activities are affected are complex. Failure of the President and Congress to reach agreement on full-year or interim funding measures occasionally has caused shutdowns of affected federal government activities. The longest such shutdown lasted 21 full days during FY1996, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996. More recently, a funding gap commenced on October 1, 2013, the first day of FY2014, after funding for the previous fiscal year expired. Because funding did not resume on October 1, affected agencies began to cease operations and furlough personnel that day. A 16-full-day shutdown ensued, the first to occur in over 17 years."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brass, Clinton T.; Brudnick, Ida A.; Keegan, Natalie . . .
2017-11-30
-
Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [December 10, 2018]
"When federal agencies and programs lack funding after the expiration of full-year or interim appropriations, the agencies and programs experience a funding gap. If funding does not resume in time to continue government operations, then, under the Antideficiency Act, an agency must cease operations, except in certain situations when law authorizes continued activity. Funding gaps are distinct from shutdowns, and the criteria that flow from the Antideficiency Act for determining which activities are affected by a shutdown are complex. Failure of the President and Congress to reach agreement on full-year or interim funding measures occasionally has caused shutdowns of affected federal government activities. The longest such shutdown lasted 21 full days during FY1996, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996. More recently, a relatively long funding gap commenced on October 1, 2013, the first day of FY2014, after funding for the previous fiscal year expired. Because funding did not resume on October 1, affected agencies began to cease operations and furlough personnel that day. A 16-full-day shutdown ensued, the first to occur in over 17 years. Subsequently, two comparatively brief shutdowns occurred during FY2018, in January and February 2018, respectively."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brass, Clinton T.; Brudnick, Ida A.; Keegan, Natalie . . .
2018-12-10
-
Judicial Nomination Statistics and Analysis: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2018 [March 21, 2019]
From the Document: "In recent decades, the process for appointing judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts has been of continuing Senate interest. The President and the Senate share responsibility for making these appointments. Pursuant to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, with the appointment of each nominee also requiring Senate confirmation. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is also played midway in the appointment process by the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2019-03-21
-
Overview of Initial Responses to COVID-19 by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and by Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [March 18, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to initial responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and select courts within the federal judiciary. Consequently, this Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described in the text below. If there are any questions regarding whether such changes have occurred, congressional staff may contact the author of this Insight. Congressional staff may also contact the author for information related to responses to COVID-19 by other federal judicial entities or courts not specifically addressed below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-03-18
-
Overview of Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [March 30, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and select courts within the federal judiciary. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described in the text below. If there are any questions regarding whether such changes have occurred, congressional staff may contact the author of this Insight. The author can also be contacted for information related to responses to COVID-19 by other federal judicial entities or courts not specifically addressed below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-03-30
-
Federal Judiciary and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ('CARES Act') [April 17, 2020]
From the Document: "On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act or 'the Act') to address the nationwide impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The portions of the CARES Act directed at the federal courts seek to support the federal judiciary in two key ways. First, the Act expands courts' ability to conduct criminal proceedings by video or audio conference. Second, the Act provides funding for the federal judiciary to respond to the pandemic."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lampe, Joanna R.; McMillion, Barry J.
2020-04-17
-
Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary (July 2020) [July 21, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and select courts within the federal judiciary. Most of the responses discussed below have occurred since June 1, 2020. A previous Insight provides information about responses prior to June 1, 2020. Another Insight provides information about some of the initial responses to COVID-19 by the federal judiciary. This Insight is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity since June 1, 2020 (or earlier)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-07-21
-
Judiciary Appropriations, FY2020 [Updated May 18, 2020]
From the Introduction: "This report provides an overview of the judiciary's FY2020 budget request, as well as information about Congress's consideration of the judiciary's request. The first section of this report includes subsections covering each major action involving the judiciary's FY2020 budget request[.] [...] The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2020, as well as information about the mandatory appropriations and administrative provisions included in the appropriations process. The third section provides information about the various courts, judicial entities, and judicial services that are covered by appropriations for the judiciary. The report also identifies some of the courts and judicial services that are not covered by such appropriations (but are covered by other appropriations bills). Finally, the report provides information about ongoing policy issues affecting the judiciary that may be of interest to Congress during FY2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-05-18
-
United States Bankruptcy Courts: Recent Caseload Statistics [July 15, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information and statistics related to filings in the United States bankruptcy courts for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2020 (this is the most recent 12-month period for which data are available). This Insight provides information and data analysis related to judicial caseload statistics, but does not provide legal analysis."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-07-15
-
U.S. District Court Vacancies at the End of a President's Fourth Calendar Year in Office [July 6, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides, from the Reagan presidency to the Obama presidency, comparative historical data related to U.S. district court vacancies and nominations that existed at the end of a President's fourth calendar year in office. Specifically, the data provided reflect district court vacancies that existed on January 1 after a President's fourth calendar year in office (as well as any nominations for these same vacancies that were returned by the Senate at or near the end of a President's fourth year in office). The specific dates for which vacancies are reported include January 1, 1985 (for the end of President Reagan's fourth calendar year in office); January 1, 1993 (George H. W. Bush presidency); January 1, 1997 (Clinton presidency); January 1, 2005 (George W. Bush presidency); and January 1, 2013 (Obama presidency)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-07-06
-
Overview of Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [Updated April 27, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and select courts within the federal judiciary. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described in the text below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-04-27
-
Federal Jury Trials and COVID-19 [April 20, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information and analysis related to federal jury trials and how such trials have been impacted by Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19. Given the rapidly changing situation surrounding COVID-19, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information that differs from what is described in the text below. If there are any questions regarding whether such changes have occurred, congressional staff may contact the author of this Insight."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-04-20
-
Overview of Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary [Updated June 11, 2020]
From the Document: "This CRS [Congressional Research Service] Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and select courts within the federal judiciary. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the policies and practices adopted by each federal court or judicial entity. Additionally, the information provided in this Insight may be superseded by new information from that which is described below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-06-11
-
Recent Responses to COVID-19 by the Judicial Conference of the United States and Select Courts Within the Federal Judiciary (December 2020) [December 23, 2020]
From the Document: "This Insight provides information related to recent responses to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the United States Supreme Court, and other select courts within the federal judiciary. The responses discussed below have occurred since September 1, 2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-12-23
-
Confirmation of U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During Presidential Election Years: Frequently Asked Questions [September 18, 2020]
From the Document: "This report provides data and analysis related to frequently asked questions about the confirmation of U.S. circuit and district court nominations during presidential election years. Senators with different political views have at different times have spoken of their expectations of a potential drop-off in the confirmation of lower federal court nominees occurring earlier in presidential election years than in other years (and, consequently, the expectation that fewer such nominees would be confirmed in presidential election years). There is, however, no written Senate or Judiciary Committee rule concerning the processing of judicial nominations during presidential election years, and the volume and timing of the processing of such nominations has varied over time. [...] The report includes data from presidential election years and other years during the period 1977 to 2016 (i.e., from the Carter presidency through the Obama presidency).When relevant, data are also presented for the 2017 to 2020 period. Analysis of past data is not presented as being predictive of future activity by the Senate on judicial nominations during presidential election years or other years."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-09-18
-
Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2018: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President [Updated October 9, 2020]
From the Summary: "The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must, under the 'Appointments Clause' of the Constitution, first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-10-09
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote [Updated October 16, 2020]
From the Introduction: "The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The 'Appointments Clause' (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.' The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature--the sharing of power between the President and Senate--has remained unchanged. To receive an appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. This report provides information and analyses related to the debate and consideration of Supreme Court nominations by the full Senate once nominations are reported by the Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-10-16
-
Supreme Court Appointment Process: President's Selection of a Nominee [Updated September 28, 2020]
From the Summary: "The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is of consequence because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine-member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President's years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive what can amount to lifetime appointments which, by constitutional design, helps ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McMillion, Barry J.
2020-09-28
